WORK-RELATED ROAD ACCIDENTS

TRL was commissioned in 2001 to carry out research into the question of whether people driving for work-related purposes might be at greater risk than other drivers of being involved in an injury accident. A questionnaire was sent to a sample of drivers of vehicles up to three years old identified from police reports of accidents that involved personal injury. It was also sent to a general sample of drivers of vehicles up to three years old. This included drivers of company-registered vehicles and drivers of privately registered vehicles (both of which may or may not do work-related mileage). This methodology allowed, for the first time, the excess risk of injury accidents arising from work-related driving to be estimated. Previous studies have only been able to estimate the excess liability or work-related drivers to 'all accidents' - which are dominated by damage-only accidents. The results show that car drivers with more than 80 per cent of their annual mileage on work-related journeys had about 50 per cent more injury accidents than other car drivers who were otherwise similar in terms of age, sex and mileage. Drivers whose work-related journeys accounted for 80 per cent or less of their total mileage had, on average, about 13 per cent more accidents than otherwise similar drivers doing no work related mileage. Drivers whose work related journeys accounted for more than 80 per cent of their total mileage differed from other drivers in their responses to a number of behavioural questions. In particular they were more likely to drive when fatigued, under time pressure, and when conducting distracting in-car activities like mobile phone conversations. While such differences will increase the risk of work-related driving and thus help to explain its excess accident liability, in fact the survey was not able to demonstrate this directly. Neither did the survey find the expected associations between accident risk and violational driving behaviour, driving style, or attitudes to driving violations. One possible explanation discussed in the report is that drivers' responses were influenced by their having been recently involved in an injury accident, such that the responses did not give a true picture of behaviour and attitudes as they were before the occurrence of the accident. (A)

[1]  H C Joksch,et al.  Velocity change and fatality risk in a crash--a rule of thumb. , 1993, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[2]  C R Lockwood,et al.  FACTORS AFFECTING THE ACCIDENT LIABILITY OF MOTORCYCLISTS - A MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF SURVEY DATA , 1990 .

[3]  D. Wright.  Behavioural research in road safety VII , 1998 .

[4]  Alasdair Cain,et al.  Investigation of the Use of Mobile Phones While Driving , 1999 .

[5]  A Guppy,et al.  Speeding in relation to perceptions of risk, utility and driving style by British company car drivers. , 1995, Ergonomics.

[6]  F P McKenna,et al.  The development, validation, and application of a video-based technique for measuring an everyday risk-taking behavior: drivers' speed choice. , 1999, The Journal of applied psychology.

[7]  P Lynn,et al.  THE ACCIDENTAL LIABILITY OF COMPANY CAR DRIVERS , 1999 .

[8]  G Maycock,et al.  Sleepiness and driving: the experience of U.K. car drivers. , 1997, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[9]  G Maycock,et al.  THE SAFETY OF FLEET CAR DRIVERS: A REVIEW , 1999 .

[10]  Karel Brookhuis,et al.  Behavioural research in road safety. , 1995 .

[11]  N P Gregersen,et al.  Road safety improvement in large companies. An experimental comparison of different measures. , 1996, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[12]  Geoffrey Underwood,et al.  A STUDY OF THE ACCIDENTS AND BEHAVIOURS OF COMPANY CAR DRIVERS , 2001 .

[13]  S Stradling,et al.  Errors and violations on the roads: a real distinction? , 1990, Ergonomics.

[14]  D. E Haigney,et al.  Concurrent mobile (cellular) phone use and driving performance: task demand characteristics and compensatory processes , 2000 .

[15]  C R Lockwood,et al.  The accident liability of car drivers , 1991 .

[16]  Jennie Connor,et al.  THE ROLE OF FATIGUE IN CAR CRASHES: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW , 1998 .

[17]  H Alm,et al.  The effects of a mobile telephone task on driver behaviour in a car following situation. , 1995, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[18]  G Maycock,et al.  Sleepiness and driving: the experience of UK car drivers , 1996, Journal of sleep research.

[19]  A Guppy,et al.  Driving attitudes and driving experience , 1990 .

[20]  M S Horswill,et al.  THE INFLUENCE OF CAR TYPE ON DRIVERS' RISK TAKING , 2001 .

[21]  C J Baughan,et al.  A SURVEY OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ABS IN REDUCING ACCIDENTS , 2000 .

[22]  A Quimby,et al.  THE FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE A DRIVER'S CHOICE OF SPEED - A QUESTIONNAIRE STUDY , 1999 .

[23]  Robert West,et al.  The Role of Personality and Attitudes in Traffic Accident Risk , 1997 .

[24]  A Stevens,et al.  THE USE OF MOBILE PHONES WHILE DRIVING: A REVIEW , 1997 .

[25]  G B Grayson.  COMPANY CARS AND ROAD SAFETY , 1999 .

[26]  W Schneider.  Influencing individual and group safety values and norms , 1991 .

[27]  R West,et al.  Direct observation of driving, self reports of driver behaviour, and accident involvement. , 1993, Ergonomics.

[28]  Andrew Parkes,et al.  HOW DANGEROUS IS DRIVING WITH A MOBILE PHONE? BENCHMARKING THE IMPAIRMENT TO ALCOHOL , 2002 .

[29]  E Forsyth,et al.  COHORT STUDY OF LEARNER AND NOVICE DRIVERS. PART 4: NOVICE DRIVER ACCIDENTS IN RELATION TO METHODS OF LEARNING TO DRIVE, PERFORMANCE IN THE DRIVING TEST AND SELF ASSESSED DRIVING ABILITY AND BEHAVIOUR , 1997 .